GR L 44178; (August, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-44178 August 21, 1987
RICARDO CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LOPE S. OCAMPO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, vendors and stall holders at Padre Rada Market in Tondo, Manila, filed a class suit against then Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas and petitioner Ricardo Cruz. They sought to annul the Mayor’s decision to withdraw the market as a public market under city supervision. Petitioner Cruz, claiming ownership and operation of the market for over 25 years under a 1949 municipal resolution, notified the Mayor and vendors in 1970 of the withdrawal of three-fourths of the market area from city control, effective June 15, 1970, thereby ceasing its function as a public market. Mayor Villegas allowed the withdrawal, relying on a prior Court of Appeals decision involving Elcano Market which upheld an operator’s right to withdraw property from public market use.
The trial court upheld the validity of the Mayor’s decision and the withdrawal notice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring that Padre Rada Market remains a public market under government supervision and that the vendors be maintained. It denied the withdrawal “until legal conditions and equitable justification for the withdrawal by private parties obtain.”
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the City Mayor may validly withdraw Padre Rada Market as a public market.
RULING
No, the City Mayor cannot validly effect such withdrawal. The legal logic hinges on the proper allocation of legislative authority. The power to establish, maintain, or withdraw a public market is a legislative function, not an executive one. Under the law governing Manila at the time, this power resided with the Municipal Board (the city’s legislative body). The Mayor’s act of approving the withdrawal without the requisite legislative action from the Board was an ultra vires act, exceeding his executive authority.
The Court clarified that the cited Elcano Market case was distinguishable and did not control. Furthermore, the subsequent creation of the Metropolitan Manila Commission, which assumed the legislative functions of the Municipal Board, did not retroactively validate the Mayor’s unauthorized act. The notice of withdrawal itself indicated the intent was not to cease operations but to operate free from government control and supervision, effectively converting it into a private market. Such a conversion or closure must follow the legal procedures prescribed by law, which were not observed. Therefore, Padre Rada Market must remain a public market subject to government supervision, and the vendors are entitled to remain. The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.